It's hard to know why something didn't happen but it's also worth noting that the Nordic Countries don't have socialist economic systems, they have capitalist economic systems that also have social safety nets funded by a progressive taxation system.

Every western country has something like this, but some have more than others. If the US was in the business of intervening to prevent social safety nets or high taxes on upper income people, they would have had occasion to intervene in most of their allies, which would have gotten extremely messy.

The US cares about its interests, just like any other country. The principle US interests that would be threatened by socialism are foreign policy/security interests, and economic interests. The ways these interests intersect with foreign policy are situations where a country might realign in the Cold War, like changing from pro-American to neutral or to pro-Soviet, or situations where a socialist government was intent on nationalizing an American owned business or a business connected to America. You will find that where the US intervened against socialism, one of these things was either occurring or at risk of occurring.

Socialism is characterized by government control of the economy, or certain sectors of the economy, which is less common in the West, but even where it is common, it's hard to see why the US would care about for example the proliferation of "Crown Corporations" in Saskatchewan that control car insurance, telecommunications, and energy. Saskatchewan on the other hand, with the exception of it's idiosyncratic commitment to state enterprise, tends to be very conservative and pro-American, so there's really no reason why it would make much sense for America to intervene in a place like this, they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!